Thursday, December 15, 2005
HOW CAN JUST ANY BIBLE BE THE "WORD OF GOD?"
STATEMENT OFTHE PROBLEM
"The Word of God" is certainly one of the most important topics that a Christian could ponder. Yet here we run into a bewildering array of views. On the so-called liberal side, there is the opinion that the Bible is not an infallible spiritual guide, or that even if there is an "infallible Word of God," then the Bible only obliquely represents it (as in Neo-Orthodoxy). However, I want to respond to a position on the extreme right; the idea that God has inspired and preserved one infallible Scripture for English speaking people, namely, the King James Version. On another blog, I have briefly discussed the textual issues, but here I want to respond to the idea that there can only be one "true Word of God" in every language.
Evangelicals believe that the Bible that God inspired was, in fact, the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that came from the hands of the biblical authors themselves, which are called the "autographs." From one point of view, the only fully inspired "Bible" would be a complete textually restored Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. That was and is God's Word in written form, and our English translations are only facsimiles of it.
Does this mean that we do not have God's Word in English? What if I don't know how to read Greek? Does the Lord demand that I learn Greek and Hebrew in order to understand His Word? What does the Bible say about God's Word, and especially about God's Word in other languages?
PART 1- THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
The best place to begin is to see what the New Testament writers thought about the Old Testament. First, it's obvious that the written words of the Old Testament were seen by Jesus and the early Christians as coming from God and having divine authority in their lives. But let's unpack that a little more. In Romans 3, Paul throws out something interesting:
RO 3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
Paul says that the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God, referring to the Old Testament. What God said to Moses, Isaiah, King David, etc., were "the very words of God." In other words, GOD'S WORD was what He spoke to the prophets and writers of the Old Testament. This is not exactly the case with our English Bibles. Paul does not say that the very words of God were also entrusted to the Greeks, for as a trained Pharisee, Paul knew that the Old Testament was in Hebrew. He also knew that what he was writing in his letters was a Greek translation of those Hebrew words. He separates his Greek renderings from the "very words of God" in Hebrew. I am not saying that we do not have God's Word, but our English translations are not the "very words of God." They are instead "the very words of God given in Hebrew but translated into another language, in this case English."
Second, to show that even though a translation is not "the very words of God," it is STILL God's Word; note that the New Testament does many times quote the Old Testament- in Greek. For the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek (and called the Septuagint) a few hundred years before Jesus. This Greek translation WAS the Bible of the early Christian church, especially before the New Testament letters and gospels were gathered together into one book and copied and spread around. When the Old Testament was quoted (in Greek), it was given the full authority of God, and called "Scripture," as in 2 Tim 3:16 (more on this verse below):
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
(In fact Timothy is told to "devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture"; 1 tim 4:13, which for him would probably have been the Septuagint.)
Notice that nowhere in the New Testament does a writer say that you must only use God's Word in Hebrew, or that the Septuagint is the only preserved version of God's Word to Greek speaking people. It was recognized by Paul that the Jews had been given "the very words of God," but he has no problem expounding God's Word from the Greek, frequently quoting the Septuagint, yet never saying that the Septuagint was somehow more special than any other possible Greek translation.
PART 2- THE WORD OF GOD IN THE BIBLE
Before turning to how we should view the New Testament, we must pause and look at the phrase "the Word of God." What many people miss, is that the phrase "word of God" in the Bible rarely refers directly to the Bible.
1) It refers firstly to God's speaking directly to a person:
GE 15:1 After this, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision
1KI 12:22 But this word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God
LK 3:2 the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert
JN 3:34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.
2) Secondly, in the NT, it refers to the message of the Gospel:
AC 4:31 spoke the word of God boldly (they shared the gospel)
AC 8:14 Samaria had accepted the word of God (the gospel)
2CO 2:17 we do not peddle the word of God for profit (Does NOT mean they were Gideon’s and only handed out Bibles for free!)
2CO 4:2 we do not use deception, nor do we distort the WORD OF GOD. On the contrary, by setting forth THE TRUTH plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if OUR GOSPEL is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. (Word of God, Truth, and Our Gospel are synonyms.)
3) Thirdly, THE WORD OF GOD in the Bible is above all else, CHRIST:
JN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word
REV 19:13 He is dressed in a robe, and his name is the Word of God
There are tons more examples, just not enough time. To sum up point 2:
There is NO place in the New Testament where the phrase "word of God" UNAMBIGUOUSLY REFERS TO THE BIBLE. (No, not even Hebrews 4:12.) The closest thing is Psalm 119, and even there "word" is synonymous with God's "ways," "precepts," commands," and "statutes," which is not a clear-cut identification with the text of the Old Testament.
PART 3- GOD GAVE US SCRIPTURES
Frequently, in the New Testament, the Bible is referred to as "Scripture" (33 times in the NIV, Greek "graphe"). Jesus calls it "Scripture," and quotes often from it. This is the also the word 2 Tim 3:16 uses. Look at it again, for it is one of the most important verses about the Bible that is in the entire Bible:
2TI 3: 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
In Greek, Paul calls Scripture "theopneustos," which literally means "God-breathed," as in the NIV. (The KJV "given by inspiration of God" reflects the idea well, but is not nearly as literal as the NIV. It's interesting to see the "literal translation" engage in "thought for thought" translating, and the "thought for thought" version getting more literal!)
Therefore, our Bibles should probably be called "God's Breath." (Obviously no one will seriously make that change in terms!) God's Word (which is Jesus, which is also the good news about Jesus, which God speaks inwardly to our hearts) certainly comes to us through our reading of "God's Breath." Whenever we read our English versions, He “breathes" into it; at least when it is using words that communicate the message and ideas that He is wanting to say. Wherever a Bible translation (any one) is communicating ideas that are NOT what God is saying, then God is NOT speaking through it at that place.
(I am not trying to push one of the doctrines of "Neo-orthodoxy," that the Bible "contains" God's word, but is not synonymous with it; or that some parts of the Bible are God's Word, and others are not. Read on, please.)
I'm just trying to show how the Bible talks about how God Himself works through the Bible when we read it. His Word (more than just the Bible) speaks directly to our heart:
HEB 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
The writer is talking about more than the Bible, for he or she refers to God's sight as well. This is describing the very action of God in speaking to people throughout the world. Because God's Word is more, much more, than a written record in a certain language, God is able to speak to us through any of our Bibles.
PART 4- THE ARGUMENT STATED LOGICALLY
Here is another way of putting this: Think of the category of GOD'S WORD as a big circle:
(Click on the picture to see it more clearly.)
Since the Bible considers "God's Word" to be more than just the words of the Bible, as it includes God's speaking to our hearts as well as the general message of the Gospel (see PART 2), then the Bible would be a smaller circle inside the larger circle of God's Word.
Also, since the apostle Paul and other New Testament writers had no problems quoting the Hebrew Old Testament in Greek, frequently from a Greek translation (see PART 1), then we may add our translations to the category of God's Word, recognizing that they are not 100% identical to the original Scriptures, which of course were in different languages that may have conveyed different ideas than we have available to use in our own. The circle for our imperfect translations would be partly outside the big circle, but would mostly be concentric with the circle for the Bible as orginally given.
(The farther away a translation is from what God intended to say, the farther away from the circle of Scripture and God's Word it is depicted. Thus, the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation has various part outside the circle due to their changing some verses to fit their theology, and the Book of Mormon is completely outside the circle.)
However, if God's Word is shrunk down to mean only the Bible, then we are left with the problem of NOT having God's Word available to us EXCEPT in the original parchments or scrolls of the original writers.........and then we must hope that maybe perhaps God has also inspired a Bible in OUR language........and then we must somehow pick one particular version that has had some success, and christen it as divinely inspired itself:
(See figure 5.)
This seems to be the point where the King James Only position deviates from Scripture. The "Word of God" is completely equated with the Bible, and then specifically with the King James Bible. Either view does not square with how the Scriptures use the phrase "the word of God." Obviously, if the "word of God" is shrunk to mean only the Bible, then there might be an argument over which Bible- the King James, or maybe another translation? Yet when it is seen that the "word of God" in the Bible is actually more wide ranging than just the Bible (again, see Part 2), then we can see that we are not stuck having to pick only one version as authoritative, while condemming the rest.
However, as Christians who believe in 2 Timothy 3:16, we also acknowledge that the "Word of God" that God has chosen to put in the Bible is our only infallible and authoritative rule for our faith, doctrine, and practice. If anyone else comes along, claiming to have a "word of God" that adds to or contradicts the Bible, then we reject that "word." Even if someone comes along with a "word of prophecy," we know that the Bible (any version!) tells us to "weigh" that word, and to see if it really is God's direction, but also to never give it the same authority as Scripture. God's AUTHORITATIVE word is given in Scripture- both the Hebrew and Greek originals as well as our English renderings, in so far as they represent the originals. The gray areas where we argue over the correct textual reading or the correct translation of a word in no way impinge on the fact that God's Word has been transmitted to us, and has been translated into our language so that everyone may read and understand without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
We can be sure that God's Word IS bigger than the Bible, and that's why we can be sure that ALL OF THE BIBLE is God's Word (even.....gasp! ...the Song of Solomon), and that when we read a translation, we have God's actual Word translated in written form.
PART 5- GOD'S WORD IN ALL OF OUR BIBLES
I actually came to believe the Gospel (as Protestants understand it) through reading the Roman Catholic translation (New American Bible, NAB)- because it was God's Word. Even if the human translators mess it up in places, God still speaks through His Word. For example, God can (and does) speak through the Jehovah's Witnesses translation (New World Translation), even though they have twisted several of the verses, including John 1:1, in order to push their pet doctrines (Jesus is not God, etc.). And God certainly speaks loud and clear through the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, NAB TEV, ESV, etc.
Finally on this point, it is to God's glory that He so deigns to speak to us through all of our fallible translations, instead of making every Christian learn to read Greek and Hebrew in order to read His Brea..uh...His Word. BUT, this is why we must make every endeavor, with His help and grace, and led by His Spirit, to see that we have the best rendition of what He first "breathed" to the writers of the Bible (the best Greek texts); and that our English translations are rendering the ideas of the foreign languages (Greek and Hebrew) into English into the best way so that people of every time (not just people in 1611) can read, understand, and hear God speak to them.
BECAUSE I believe that ALL of our English translations are God's Word, and are not to be identified with only one specific version; that is why I desire to spend my life:
-engaging in Textual Criticism, in order to refine our understanding of what the Greek New Testament (and Hebrew Old Testament) originally said.
-studying the languages, grammar, customs, and ideas of the people who wrote the Bible, so as to better understand what they meant in what they wrote.
-learning to preach and teach the same Word of God in a way that frees God up to speak ever more boldly to those listening.
"The Word of God" is certainly one of the most important topics that a Christian could ponder. Yet here we run into a bewildering array of views. On the so-called liberal side, there is the opinion that the Bible is not an infallible spiritual guide, or that even if there is an "infallible Word of God," then the Bible only obliquely represents it (as in Neo-Orthodoxy). However, I want to respond to a position on the extreme right; the idea that God has inspired and preserved one infallible Scripture for English speaking people, namely, the King James Version. On another blog, I have briefly discussed the textual issues, but here I want to respond to the idea that there can only be one "true Word of God" in every language.
Evangelicals believe that the Bible that God inspired was, in fact, the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that came from the hands of the biblical authors themselves, which are called the "autographs." From one point of view, the only fully inspired "Bible" would be a complete textually restored Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. That was and is God's Word in written form, and our English translations are only facsimiles of it.
Does this mean that we do not have God's Word in English? What if I don't know how to read Greek? Does the Lord demand that I learn Greek and Hebrew in order to understand His Word? What does the Bible say about God's Word, and especially about God's Word in other languages?
PART 1- THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
The best place to begin is to see what the New Testament writers thought about the Old Testament. First, it's obvious that the written words of the Old Testament were seen by Jesus and the early Christians as coming from God and having divine authority in their lives. But let's unpack that a little more. In Romans 3, Paul throws out something interesting:
RO 3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
Paul says that the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God, referring to the Old Testament. What God said to Moses, Isaiah, King David, etc., were "the very words of God." In other words, GOD'S WORD was what He spoke to the prophets and writers of the Old Testament. This is not exactly the case with our English Bibles. Paul does not say that the very words of God were also entrusted to the Greeks, for as a trained Pharisee, Paul knew that the Old Testament was in Hebrew. He also knew that what he was writing in his letters was a Greek translation of those Hebrew words. He separates his Greek renderings from the "very words of God" in Hebrew. I am not saying that we do not have God's Word, but our English translations are not the "very words of God." They are instead "the very words of God given in Hebrew but translated into another language, in this case English."
Second, to show that even though a translation is not "the very words of God," it is STILL God's Word; note that the New Testament does many times quote the Old Testament- in Greek. For the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek (and called the Septuagint) a few hundred years before Jesus. This Greek translation WAS the Bible of the early Christian church, especially before the New Testament letters and gospels were gathered together into one book and copied and spread around. When the Old Testament was quoted (in Greek), it was given the full authority of God, and called "Scripture," as in 2 Tim 3:16 (more on this verse below):
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
(In fact Timothy is told to "devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture"; 1 tim 4:13, which for him would probably have been the Septuagint.)
Notice that nowhere in the New Testament does a writer say that you must only use God's Word in Hebrew, or that the Septuagint is the only preserved version of God's Word to Greek speaking people. It was recognized by Paul that the Jews had been given "the very words of God," but he has no problem expounding God's Word from the Greek, frequently quoting the Septuagint, yet never saying that the Septuagint was somehow more special than any other possible Greek translation.
PART 2- THE WORD OF GOD IN THE BIBLE
Before turning to how we should view the New Testament, we must pause and look at the phrase "the Word of God." What many people miss, is that the phrase "word of God" in the Bible rarely refers directly to the Bible.
1) It refers firstly to God's speaking directly to a person:
GE 15:1 After this, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision
1KI 12:22 But this word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God
LK 3:2 the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert
JN 3:34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.
2) Secondly, in the NT, it refers to the message of the Gospel:
AC 4:31 spoke the word of God boldly (they shared the gospel)
AC 8:14 Samaria had accepted the word of God (the gospel)
2CO 2:17 we do not peddle the word of God for profit (Does NOT mean they were Gideon’s and only handed out Bibles for free!)
2CO 4:2 we do not use deception, nor do we distort the WORD OF GOD. On the contrary, by setting forth THE TRUTH plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if OUR GOSPEL is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. (Word of God, Truth, and Our Gospel are synonyms.)
3) Thirdly, THE WORD OF GOD in the Bible is above all else, CHRIST:
JN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word
REV 19:13 He is dressed in a robe, and his name is the Word of God
There are tons more examples, just not enough time. To sum up point 2:
There is NO place in the New Testament where the phrase "word of God" UNAMBIGUOUSLY REFERS TO THE BIBLE. (No, not even Hebrews 4:12.) The closest thing is Psalm 119, and even there "word" is synonymous with God's "ways," "precepts," commands," and "statutes," which is not a clear-cut identification with the text of the Old Testament.
PART 3- GOD GAVE US SCRIPTURES
Frequently, in the New Testament, the Bible is referred to as "Scripture" (33 times in the NIV, Greek "graphe"). Jesus calls it "Scripture," and quotes often from it. This is the also the word 2 Tim 3:16 uses. Look at it again, for it is one of the most important verses about the Bible that is in the entire Bible:
2TI 3: 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
In Greek, Paul calls Scripture "theopneustos," which literally means "God-breathed," as in the NIV. (The KJV "given by inspiration of God" reflects the idea well, but is not nearly as literal as the NIV. It's interesting to see the "literal translation" engage in "thought for thought" translating, and the "thought for thought" version getting more literal!)
Therefore, our Bibles should probably be called "God's Breath." (Obviously no one will seriously make that change in terms!) God's Word (which is Jesus, which is also the good news about Jesus, which God speaks inwardly to our hearts) certainly comes to us through our reading of "God's Breath." Whenever we read our English versions, He “breathes" into it; at least when it is using words that communicate the message and ideas that He is wanting to say. Wherever a Bible translation (any one) is communicating ideas that are NOT what God is saying, then God is NOT speaking through it at that place.
(I am not trying to push one of the doctrines of "Neo-orthodoxy," that the Bible "contains" God's word, but is not synonymous with it; or that some parts of the Bible are God's Word, and others are not. Read on, please.)
I'm just trying to show how the Bible talks about how God Himself works through the Bible when we read it. His Word (more than just the Bible) speaks directly to our heart:
HEB 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
The writer is talking about more than the Bible, for he or she refers to God's sight as well. This is describing the very action of God in speaking to people throughout the world. Because God's Word is more, much more, than a written record in a certain language, God is able to speak to us through any of our Bibles.
PART 4- THE ARGUMENT STATED LOGICALLY
Here is another way of putting this: Think of the category of GOD'S WORD as a big circle:
(Click on the picture to see it more clearly.)
Since the Bible considers "God's Word" to be more than just the words of the Bible, as it includes God's speaking to our hearts as well as the general message of the Gospel (see PART 2), then the Bible would be a smaller circle inside the larger circle of God's Word.
Also, since the apostle Paul and other New Testament writers had no problems quoting the Hebrew Old Testament in Greek, frequently from a Greek translation (see PART 1), then we may add our translations to the category of God's Word, recognizing that they are not 100% identical to the original Scriptures, which of course were in different languages that may have conveyed different ideas than we have available to use in our own. The circle for our imperfect translations would be partly outside the big circle, but would mostly be concentric with the circle for the Bible as orginally given.
(The farther away a translation is from what God intended to say, the farther away from the circle of Scripture and God's Word it is depicted. Thus, the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation has various part outside the circle due to their changing some verses to fit their theology, and the Book of Mormon is completely outside the circle.)
However, if God's Word is shrunk down to mean only the Bible, then we are left with the problem of NOT having God's Word available to us EXCEPT in the original parchments or scrolls of the original writers.........and then we must hope that maybe perhaps God has also inspired a Bible in OUR language........and then we must somehow pick one particular version that has had some success, and christen it as divinely inspired itself:
(See figure 5.)
This seems to be the point where the King James Only position deviates from Scripture. The "Word of God" is completely equated with the Bible, and then specifically with the King James Bible. Either view does not square with how the Scriptures use the phrase "the word of God." Obviously, if the "word of God" is shrunk to mean only the Bible, then there might be an argument over which Bible- the King James, or maybe another translation? Yet when it is seen that the "word of God" in the Bible is actually more wide ranging than just the Bible (again, see Part 2), then we can see that we are not stuck having to pick only one version as authoritative, while condemming the rest.
However, as Christians who believe in 2 Timothy 3:16, we also acknowledge that the "Word of God" that God has chosen to put in the Bible is our only infallible and authoritative rule for our faith, doctrine, and practice. If anyone else comes along, claiming to have a "word of God" that adds to or contradicts the Bible, then we reject that "word." Even if someone comes along with a "word of prophecy," we know that the Bible (any version!) tells us to "weigh" that word, and to see if it really is God's direction, but also to never give it the same authority as Scripture. God's AUTHORITATIVE word is given in Scripture- both the Hebrew and Greek originals as well as our English renderings, in so far as they represent the originals. The gray areas where we argue over the correct textual reading or the correct translation of a word in no way impinge on the fact that God's Word has been transmitted to us, and has been translated into our language so that everyone may read and understand without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
We can be sure that God's Word IS bigger than the Bible, and that's why we can be sure that ALL OF THE BIBLE is God's Word (even.....gasp! ...the Song of Solomon), and that when we read a translation, we have God's actual Word translated in written form.
PART 5- GOD'S WORD IN ALL OF OUR BIBLES
I actually came to believe the Gospel (as Protestants understand it) through reading the Roman Catholic translation (New American Bible, NAB)- because it was God's Word. Even if the human translators mess it up in places, God still speaks through His Word. For example, God can (and does) speak through the Jehovah's Witnesses translation (New World Translation), even though they have twisted several of the verses, including John 1:1, in order to push their pet doctrines (Jesus is not God, etc.). And God certainly speaks loud and clear through the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, NAB TEV, ESV, etc.
Finally on this point, it is to God's glory that He so deigns to speak to us through all of our fallible translations, instead of making every Christian learn to read Greek and Hebrew in order to read His Brea..uh...His Word. BUT, this is why we must make every endeavor, with His help and grace, and led by His Spirit, to see that we have the best rendition of what He first "breathed" to the writers of the Bible (the best Greek texts); and that our English translations are rendering the ideas of the foreign languages (Greek and Hebrew) into English into the best way so that people of every time (not just people in 1611) can read, understand, and hear God speak to them.
BECAUSE I believe that ALL of our English translations are God's Word, and are not to be identified with only one specific version; that is why I desire to spend my life:
-engaging in Textual Criticism, in order to refine our understanding of what the Greek New Testament (and Hebrew Old Testament) originally said.
-studying the languages, grammar, customs, and ideas of the people who wrote the Bible, so as to better understand what they meant in what they wrote.
-learning to preach and teach the same Word of God in a way that frees God up to speak ever more boldly to those listening.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Me!
Sunday, December 11, 2005
PURITY OR STRUGGLE? POWER OR WEAKNESS?
HOW UNDERSTANDING THE TENSION OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD KEEPS US BALANCED
Are Christians meant to struggle with sin and be defeated by it their whole life? Or is there an experience of purity that we can have which will put all struggle with sin behind us? Should we expect God to heal each and every sickness and disease due to our faith? Or is the Christian life one of continual weakness, where we are taught holiness and patience through every disease and malady that comes our way? Must we only choose between these extremes, or does the Bible point us to something better?
Christians are prone to going to extremes just like everyone else. When it comes to the depth of our passion to live for Jesus, we should have a zeal that never wanes (Rom. 12:11). However, when it comes to formulating our beliefs "from the Bible," it is much better to seek to balance various biblical teachings, instead of focusing on one nugget of truth to the exclusion of others. I have been greatly helped in understanding the Bible through studying the theme of the kingdom of God.
What is the Kingdom of God?
The Gospels tell us that when Jesus began his ministry, he began by announcing that, "The kingdom of God is near" (Mark 1:15 , cf. Matthew 4:17). He said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God...because that is why I was sent" (Luke 4:43). He sends out seventy-two followers and instructs them to tell those who welcome them (and those who don't!) that "the kingdom of God is near" (Luke 10:8-12). He asserts that when He casts a demon out of a person "by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt 12:28). Clearly, the kingdom of God was of central importance to everything that Jesus said and did.
The “kingdom of God” refers firstly to God’s kingly power in action. “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10 KJV). The kingdom or dominion of God has come when God’s will is being done, and wherever God is having His way is where the kingdom of God is being seen. We are to “seek first His kingdom” (Matthew 6:33). meaning that we should seek to have God be our Lord and King, and we should desire His will for our lives in all things before all other wants or desires.
“Kingdom” in the Bible (Hebrew “malkuth,“ Greek “basileia”) is not primarily the geographical place the King rules over (as in the United Kingdom), nor the people who are ruled over (the subjects of the king), but refers first of all to the actual right and authority to rule, along with the carrying out of such authority. This can be seen in the story when “A certain nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return” (Luke 19:12 NASB). The land and the people he was to rule over were where he was at, but he did not have the authority to rule until he went to a distant land to “receive a kingdom.” “For dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations” (Psalm 22:28). Once again (as in the Lord’s Prayer above) we see an example of Hebrew poetry where the second line redefines the first. His “dominion” is when He “rules,” just as His Kingdom has come when His will is done.
When will the Kingdom come?
God’s will was perfectly obeyed throughout all of creation until humanity decided that it didn’t like God being the boss of all, and promptly rebelled against Him (The “Fall of Humanity” is recorded in Genesis 3 ). Since then, all creation shows signs of the lack of God’s Presence. Evil, sin, suffering, sickness, death are all evidence of the lack of God’s ruling in our world. “All creation groans” (Romans 8:20-22).
In the midst of this earthly frustration, the Old Testament prophets looked forward to a time when the kingdom and glory of God would reassert itself all over the world “as the waters cover the sea“ (Isaiah 11:9). God will come in power and rule over all, and there will be no war, (Is. 11:6-9), deafness, blindness (Is. 35:5), or any of the other effects of the Fall, including death (Is. 25:8). Humanity will once again submit to the rule of God, and will receive a new heart and have God’s Spirit to live inside them (Ezekiel 35:26-27). All this will happen when the kingdom comes.
But through Jesus, the “kingdom of God has come upon you’ (Matthew 12:28). God wouldn’t wait for the “end of all things” (1 Peter 4:7), but is acting now to bring about the redemption of humanity. All those who make God their king in this life, who receive Jesus as their Savior, will “inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Even though the kingdom of God has not come in its fullness, as pictured in Daniel 2:44 (see the next question), Christ has come so that the kingdom of God may battle with Satan (1 John 3:7), to release us who are in darkness (Isaiah 9:2), so that we may taste the powers of the coming age of the kingdom (Hebrews 6:5).
How is there a “tension” in the Kingdom of God?
The Bible is clear, however, that we don’t experience everything we can of the blessings of the kingdom at this time. When Jesus healed the sick, or cast out demons, He said that it was an example of the kingdom of God (the will of god) reasserting itself in the world (Matthew 12:28). Yet Jesus Himself did not heal everyone (Matthew 13:58). We are “saved,” but we may still fall away. God may heal our bodies, but we will still die, unless the Lord comes first and finally brings His kingdom in fullness. He may give us a new heart that is cleansed from impurity, but we are still free to wander from Him. The apostle Paul put it most eloquently when he said, “ When perfection comes, the imperfect disappears….Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:10,12). (And this “perfection” does not refer to a completed Bible: there is nothing in the context of the verse to warrant that idea, and 1 John 3:2-3 shows that the face to face that we shall see is the return of Christ.)
“The future condemnation which we all richly deserve has been transferred from the future into the past, having been borne by Christ (Romans 8:1-3). Thus we “have been saved” (Ephesians 2:28). But since our final salvation has not yet been fully realized, Paul can likewise speak of salvation as something presently in process (“we are being saved,” 1 Corinthians 1:18) and as yet to be consummated (“we shall be saved.” Romans 5:9). “Redemption” is both “already (Ephesians 1:7) and “not yet (Ephesians 4:30), as is our “adoption” (Romans 8:15 and 23)….
Many (perhaps most) New Testament doctrines can be seen to have this same structure. We get a glimpse of His glory now; we’ll see His full glory then. We see but a “poor reflection” now; we’ll see Him face to face then. Etc., etc., etc..
How does understanding the tension of the Kingdom of God keep us balanced?
Allowing for the tension of the Kingdom keeps us from going to the extremes in our theology. For example, because the Kingdom is here, we have access to the power of the Holy Spirit, as God testifies to His salvation “by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will” (Hebrews 2:4). But we understand that even Jesus “did not do many miracles” in certain places, and that Paul had to “left Trophimus sick in Miletus” (2 Timothy 4:20). Everyone will be healed…when the Kingdom comes in fullness at the return of Christ. Therefore the Christian life is both one lived in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9 “my power is made perfect in weakness.“) and yet can continually see the power of God pour forth, as Paul and Barnabas did, as the Lord “confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders” (Acts 14:3).
Another debate among Christians concerns whether a Christian can fall away. Calvinists would sometimes quote Hebrews 6:4, saying that such a person who would fall away was never saved, but had only “tasted the Lord.” Yet a look at the verse with our updated understanding shows differently:
HEB 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
Such phrases as “sharing in the Holy Spirit” and “tasting the powers of the coming age” are different ways of referring to experiencing the Kingdom of God in this life. Any who fall away from these were most definitely Christians at one time. That might not fit with one's theology very well, but it's in the Bible, so perhaps some will need to change their theology.
Finally, the question of heart purity versus struggling with sin is impacted by our understanding of the Kingdom of God. For the verses that John Wesley emphasized in his teaching on "Christian Perfection" were prophecies of the coming Kingdom, particularly Ezekiel 3626-27:
"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws."
If we do not possess everything that was promised now, then surely a “sinless perfection” awaits the full coming of the Kingdom (which was why Wesley rejected the idea of a sinless perfection in this life, where it is impossible for a believer to sin).
Is this a new teaching?
In light of all this, doesn’t it seem odd that you don’t hear much explicit teaching about the kingdom of God in our churches? “The kingdom of God” has become something of a “religious term;” one we use when talking about God but not really a clearly defined term. It seems to mean only what we need it to mean at the moment, but is rarely connected with the grand ideas of the Kingdom that are spread all across the Bible.
The reasons for this are found way back in the first few hundred years after Pentecost. As the church changed from a mostly Jewish group of believers (who knew exactly what the phrase “kingdom of God” meant), to a mostly gentile group of believers spread across the Roman empire; the church began to drift away from its Jewish roots. It didn’t understand the Jewish elements of the bible as much anymore. For example, it became popular to read the Old Testament stories as allegories of Christ or the church, because they couldn’t see any immediate use in many of the stories they found there. These later Christians understood most of the basics of Christianity, but missed many of the details.
In the Middle Ages, the church became enmeshed in politics, and to “be a Christian” basically meant to be a citizen of a Christian country. The “kingdom of God” came to be seen as just another term for the church (which is the official Roman Catholic teaching for hundreds of years, going back to Augustine in the 5th century). At this point, the term had been totally divorced from its historical roots, with it only being a matter of time (1400 years to be exact) before the Kingdom of God was just redefined as the “brotherhood of man,” which was the old liberal idea that everyone was a child of God.
It was at this time that scholars, both believers and unbelievers, began to rediscover the real historical meaning of the Kingdom, as the Jews and Jesus understood it. But they could not reach an agreement over whether the Kingdom was altogether future (Albert Schweitzer, et al.) or altogether present (C.H.Dodd et al.). The future-only people were puzzled over the present Kingdom verses, and the present-only people had to ignore the future Kingdom verses. Therefore the debate never left the realm of the scholars, and the person in the pew had no idea that we were getting closer to Jesus’ meaning.
In the post- World War 2 years, a consensus emerged among some Evangelicals and others (George Ladd, Herman Ridderboss, etc.) that the Kingdom was BOTH present and future. This seemed to make a whole lot of sense, as it cleared up a lot of the confusion and seemed to explain both the present and future verses about the Kingdom, without twisting the meaning of either. Evangelicals began to learn about the Kingdom in seminary, and may even have mentioned it in church.
But there was one BIG problem. Virtually ALL of the existing denominations had their birth and defined their doctrines BEFORE the scholarly debate trickled down. Therefore, the Kingdom was always kept as a nice add-on, but nothing that would come and occupy an important place. Until the Vineyard movement of the 1980’s, that is.
Since Vineyard was brand new, they could place the Kingdom squarely in the middle of their beliefs, since there was no old tradition that had to move over to make room for it. However, the Vineyard usually only spoke about the Kingdom when talking about spiritual gifts or healing (which was not a bad thing). They did not go on and apply it to many other areas of theology, being rather content to stick with older theologies. (Most Vineyards are Reformed, with a few reportedly being Wesleyan-Arminian.)
The situation remains the same today. Lip service is paid to the Kingdom of God, even though it was Jesus’ favorite topic. But no one is brave enough to reexamine their theology and incorporate Jesus’ obsession with the Kingdom.
Are Christians meant to struggle with sin and be defeated by it their whole life? Or is there an experience of purity that we can have which will put all struggle with sin behind us? Should we expect God to heal each and every sickness and disease due to our faith? Or is the Christian life one of continual weakness, where we are taught holiness and patience through every disease and malady that comes our way? Must we only choose between these extremes, or does the Bible point us to something better?
Christians are prone to going to extremes just like everyone else. When it comes to the depth of our passion to live for Jesus, we should have a zeal that never wanes (Rom. 12:11). However, when it comes to formulating our beliefs "from the Bible," it is much better to seek to balance various biblical teachings, instead of focusing on one nugget of truth to the exclusion of others. I have been greatly helped in understanding the Bible through studying the theme of the kingdom of God.
What is the Kingdom of God?
The Gospels tell us that when Jesus began his ministry, he began by announcing that, "The kingdom of God is near" (Mark 1:15 , cf. Matthew 4:17). He said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God...because that is why I was sent" (Luke 4:43). He sends out seventy-two followers and instructs them to tell those who welcome them (and those who don't!) that "the kingdom of God is near" (Luke 10:8-12). He asserts that when He casts a demon out of a person "by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt 12:28). Clearly, the kingdom of God was of central importance to everything that Jesus said and did.
The “kingdom of God” refers firstly to God’s kingly power in action. “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10 KJV). The kingdom or dominion of God has come when God’s will is being done, and wherever God is having His way is where the kingdom of God is being seen. We are to “seek first His kingdom” (Matthew 6:33). meaning that we should seek to have God be our Lord and King, and we should desire His will for our lives in all things before all other wants or desires.
“Kingdom” in the Bible (Hebrew “malkuth,“ Greek “basileia”) is not primarily the geographical place the King rules over (as in the United Kingdom), nor the people who are ruled over (the subjects of the king), but refers first of all to the actual right and authority to rule, along with the carrying out of such authority. This can be seen in the story when “A certain nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return” (Luke 19:12 NASB). The land and the people he was to rule over were where he was at, but he did not have the authority to rule until he went to a distant land to “receive a kingdom.” “For dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations” (Psalm 22:28). Once again (as in the Lord’s Prayer above) we see an example of Hebrew poetry where the second line redefines the first. His “dominion” is when He “rules,” just as His Kingdom has come when His will is done.
When will the Kingdom come?
God’s will was perfectly obeyed throughout all of creation until humanity decided that it didn’t like God being the boss of all, and promptly rebelled against Him (The “Fall of Humanity” is recorded in Genesis 3 ). Since then, all creation shows signs of the lack of God’s Presence. Evil, sin, suffering, sickness, death are all evidence of the lack of God’s ruling in our world. “All creation groans” (Romans 8:20-22).
In the midst of this earthly frustration, the Old Testament prophets looked forward to a time when the kingdom and glory of God would reassert itself all over the world “as the waters cover the sea“ (Isaiah 11:9). God will come in power and rule over all, and there will be no war, (Is. 11:6-9), deafness, blindness (Is. 35:5), or any of the other effects of the Fall, including death (Is. 25:8). Humanity will once again submit to the rule of God, and will receive a new heart and have God’s Spirit to live inside them (Ezekiel 35:26-27). All this will happen when the kingdom comes.
But through Jesus, the “kingdom of God has come upon you’ (Matthew 12:28). God wouldn’t wait for the “end of all things” (1 Peter 4:7), but is acting now to bring about the redemption of humanity. All those who make God their king in this life, who receive Jesus as their Savior, will “inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Even though the kingdom of God has not come in its fullness, as pictured in Daniel 2:44 (see the next question), Christ has come so that the kingdom of God may battle with Satan (1 John 3:7), to release us who are in darkness (Isaiah 9:2), so that we may taste the powers of the coming age of the kingdom (Hebrews 6:5).
How is there a “tension” in the Kingdom of God?
The Bible is clear, however, that we don’t experience everything we can of the blessings of the kingdom at this time. When Jesus healed the sick, or cast out demons, He said that it was an example of the kingdom of God (the will of god) reasserting itself in the world (Matthew 12:28). Yet Jesus Himself did not heal everyone (Matthew 13:58). We are “saved,” but we may still fall away. God may heal our bodies, but we will still die, unless the Lord comes first and finally brings His kingdom in fullness. He may give us a new heart that is cleansed from impurity, but we are still free to wander from Him. The apostle Paul put it most eloquently when he said, “ When perfection comes, the imperfect disappears….Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:10,12). (And this “perfection” does not refer to a completed Bible: there is nothing in the context of the verse to warrant that idea, and 1 John 3:2-3 shows that the face to face that we shall see is the return of Christ.)
The tension of the kingdom means that we can taste ALL of the blessings of the future kingdom now, but none of them are ours in as full a way as they will be when Christ returns and “hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power” (1 Corinthians 15:24). Gordon Fee provides some examples from the letters of Paul:
“The future condemnation which we all richly deserve has been transferred from the future into the past, having been borne by Christ (Romans 8:1-3). Thus we “have been saved” (Ephesians 2:28). But since our final salvation has not yet been fully realized, Paul can likewise speak of salvation as something presently in process (“we are being saved,” 1 Corinthians 1:18) and as yet to be consummated (“we shall be saved.” Romans 5:9). “Redemption” is both “already (Ephesians 1:7) and “not yet (Ephesians 4:30), as is our “adoption” (Romans 8:15 and 23)….
It is this understanding of salvation, as both “already” and “not yet,” that keeps Paul from being a triumphalist. Because we are “already,” we presently experience the power of Christ’s resurrection; but because we are “not yet,” we also presently participate in his sufferings (Philippians 3:10).” (God’s Empowering Presence, page 804).
Many (perhaps most) New Testament doctrines can be seen to have this same structure. We get a glimpse of His glory now; we’ll see His full glory then. We see but a “poor reflection” now; we’ll see Him face to face then. Etc., etc., etc..
How does understanding the tension of the Kingdom of God keep us balanced?
Allowing for the tension of the Kingdom keeps us from going to the extremes in our theology. For example, because the Kingdom is here, we have access to the power of the Holy Spirit, as God testifies to His salvation “by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will” (Hebrews 2:4). But we understand that even Jesus “did not do many miracles” in certain places, and that Paul had to “left Trophimus sick in Miletus” (2 Timothy 4:20). Everyone will be healed…when the Kingdom comes in fullness at the return of Christ. Therefore the Christian life is both one lived in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9 “my power is made perfect in weakness.“) and yet can continually see the power of God pour forth, as Paul and Barnabas did, as the Lord “confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders” (Acts 14:3).
Another debate among Christians concerns whether a Christian can fall away. Calvinists would sometimes quote Hebrews 6:4, saying that such a person who would fall away was never saved, but had only “tasted the Lord.” Yet a look at the verse with our updated understanding shows differently:
HEB 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
Such phrases as “sharing in the Holy Spirit” and “tasting the powers of the coming age” are different ways of referring to experiencing the Kingdom of God in this life. Any who fall away from these were most definitely Christians at one time. That might not fit with one's theology very well, but it's in the Bible, so perhaps some will need to change their theology.
Finally, the question of heart purity versus struggling with sin is impacted by our understanding of the Kingdom of God. For the verses that John Wesley emphasized in his teaching on "Christian Perfection" were prophecies of the coming Kingdom, particularly Ezekiel 3626-27:
"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws."
If we do not possess everything that was promised now, then surely a “sinless perfection” awaits the full coming of the Kingdom (which was why Wesley rejected the idea of a sinless perfection in this life, where it is impossible for a believer to sin).
Yet neither would we affirm that we are powerless in the face of temptation. The Kingdom has come. “We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (Romans 6:2). There is a fulfillment of the promises in Ezekiel that we can experience NOW. It is always possible to not sin (1 Cor 10:13). This was what Wesley was trying to say, what he termed “Christian Perfection,” or “Entire Sanctification.” A powerful defeat over sin enabling a real cleansing of one’s heart, but not a final defeat which would end all struggle in this lifetime and issue in a life of “sinless perfection.”
Is this a new teaching?
In light of all this, doesn’t it seem odd that you don’t hear much explicit teaching about the kingdom of God in our churches? “The kingdom of God” has become something of a “religious term;” one we use when talking about God but not really a clearly defined term. It seems to mean only what we need it to mean at the moment, but is rarely connected with the grand ideas of the Kingdom that are spread all across the Bible.
The reasons for this are found way back in the first few hundred years after Pentecost. As the church changed from a mostly Jewish group of believers (who knew exactly what the phrase “kingdom of God” meant), to a mostly gentile group of believers spread across the Roman empire; the church began to drift away from its Jewish roots. It didn’t understand the Jewish elements of the bible as much anymore. For example, it became popular to read the Old Testament stories as allegories of Christ or the church, because they couldn’t see any immediate use in many of the stories they found there. These later Christians understood most of the basics of Christianity, but missed many of the details.
In the Middle Ages, the church became enmeshed in politics, and to “be a Christian” basically meant to be a citizen of a Christian country. The “kingdom of God” came to be seen as just another term for the church (which is the official Roman Catholic teaching for hundreds of years, going back to Augustine in the 5th century). At this point, the term had been totally divorced from its historical roots, with it only being a matter of time (1400 years to be exact) before the Kingdom of God was just redefined as the “brotherhood of man,” which was the old liberal idea that everyone was a child of God.
It was at this time that scholars, both believers and unbelievers, began to rediscover the real historical meaning of the Kingdom, as the Jews and Jesus understood it. But they could not reach an agreement over whether the Kingdom was altogether future (Albert Schweitzer, et al.) or altogether present (C.H.Dodd et al.). The future-only people were puzzled over the present Kingdom verses, and the present-only people had to ignore the future Kingdom verses. Therefore the debate never left the realm of the scholars, and the person in the pew had no idea that we were getting closer to Jesus’ meaning.
In the post- World War 2 years, a consensus emerged among some Evangelicals and others (George Ladd, Herman Ridderboss, etc.) that the Kingdom was BOTH present and future. This seemed to make a whole lot of sense, as it cleared up a lot of the confusion and seemed to explain both the present and future verses about the Kingdom, without twisting the meaning of either. Evangelicals began to learn about the Kingdom in seminary, and may even have mentioned it in church.
But there was one BIG problem. Virtually ALL of the existing denominations had their birth and defined their doctrines BEFORE the scholarly debate trickled down. Therefore, the Kingdom was always kept as a nice add-on, but nothing that would come and occupy an important place. Until the Vineyard movement of the 1980’s, that is.
Since Vineyard was brand new, they could place the Kingdom squarely in the middle of their beliefs, since there was no old tradition that had to move over to make room for it. However, the Vineyard usually only spoke about the Kingdom when talking about spiritual gifts or healing (which was not a bad thing). They did not go on and apply it to many other areas of theology, being rather content to stick with older theologies. (Most Vineyards are Reformed, with a few reportedly being Wesleyan-Arminian.)
The situation remains the same today. Lip service is paid to the Kingdom of God, even though it was Jesus’ favorite topic. But no one is brave enough to reexamine their theology and incorporate Jesus’ obsession with the Kingdom.
Here is an example from my days at a Holiness Bible college. I have a Wesleyan-Holiness systematic theology book that actually talks about their doctrine of entire sanctification as a present blessing of the Kingdom of God, but the Holiness groups I have observed instead only want to argue the debates of the last century, such as whether or not entire sanctification is the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.”
In the midst of one such discussion at Circleville Bible College, I mentioned that maybe others outside of Holiness churches would listen to their teaching about holiness if they talked about it in the context of the Kingdom of God. Everyone stopped talking, apparently taken aback. Dr. Case replied by quoting a famous hymn, “Hmmn.. Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine. Oh what a FORETASTE of glory divine.” He seemed to be acknowledging that I had the theology right. The moment was fleeting, however. The next student raised his hand and went right back to the spirit baptism debate and it was forgotten. Once again the biblical teaching of the Kingdom was relegated to the side.
In the midst of one such discussion at Circleville Bible College, I mentioned that maybe others outside of Holiness churches would listen to their teaching about holiness if they talked about it in the context of the Kingdom of God. Everyone stopped talking, apparently taken aback. Dr. Case replied by quoting a famous hymn, “Hmmn.. Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine. Oh what a FORETASTE of glory divine.” He seemed to be acknowledging that I had the theology right. The moment was fleeting, however. The next student raised his hand and went right back to the spirit baptism debate and it was forgotten. Once again the biblical teaching of the Kingdom was relegated to the side.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
BLOGBORN AGAIN
Hey, is this thing on?
Hello?
Testing, testing, 1,2,3?
My other blog is here. Check it out, if you must.
